Ex wifes claim over property

Padstow

RAS wrote: »

And as such will be entitled to 50% or more of the assets of the marriage.

If the house was bought in 2002 then it is likely that there is substantial equity to which she is entitled.

The OP needs to see a solicitor urgently (not least as Legal Aid for divorce ends on March 31 and she may well still be able to get some support before then.

I should have said,"2k after expenses."
OP hasn't made it clear whether or not she has a sol nor whether on legal aid. I assumed she had something in place due to being in mediation.
The new ruling on LA should send accusations of abuse soaring I would think, as it will remain for those cases.

She does need a solicitor, as if there was no financial settlement with the ex wife, she could now make a claim for a share in the equity. Every complication bumps the OP's costs up though, and if on LA will have to be repaid from any gains.

Padstow

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Who would get married eh?

Some men are just like pieces of fresh meat being fought over my competing lionesses.

The old argument as to his purtpose for buying the house is up for debate. You say he bought it as a family home, he will say he bought it as his home and you were merely granted his kind permission to live there even though you had no legal tenure.

Did you pay him rent or did you live there free of charge during your period of occupation?

Until and if this goes to court, he has no real obligation to engage with you or any solicitor you may choose to hire. It could get expensive.

Have a good read on TOLATA. As you will see,it is a very contentious and potentially expensive area in which to litigate.

As a start,i'd say his only initial real responsibility to to provide for his child.

There's no morally right in it. It matters not why he bought the property, the fact as OP stated is she shared it with him and it was therefore the Former Marital Home.
He may not be obliged to engage with OP or a sol, but a court can compel him to disclose assets.
Yes his main concern is provision for the child but have you heard this saying? "Keep the mother happy and the child will be too."

C_Mababejive

Padstow wrote: »

There's no morally right in it. It matters not why he bought the property, the fact as OP stated is she shared it with him and it was therefore the Former Marital Home.
He may not be obliged to engage with OP or a sol, but a court can compel him to disclose assets.
Yes his main concern is provision for the child but have you heard this saying? "Keep the mother happy and the child will be too."

I agree,morality has nothing to do with it. Its about winning and losing. Many solicitors will make the pitch that the home was bought as a home for the family but really,we know its just gamesmanship. Solicitors have no power. The people who will eventually decide are a court of some description. Getting there could be a long ,arduous and expensive route if the male doesnt rise to the bait.

Jaffa_cake

claireh11 wrote: »

My husband and I are going through a divorce now.

He was married previously, this divorce was finalised in oct 2002. They had no marital assets as were living in rented council property. He left, she still lives there.

He bought a house for us to move in to as a family in nov 2002, our son was born dec 2002. My name is not on the house but we lived there as a family with our son. We married in 2008, I left july 2010.

We had a relationship in separate houses (I privately rent and have our son with me) but I have since found out he has been adulterous and am now divorcing him.

He is reluctant to say the least to give me a penny from the house, I was a housewife raising his son. He now says that his first wife has a right to claim from the equity in the house and he has encouraged her to do so.

We were attending mediation until he refused to make full financial disclosure. He has been told he will have to do this whether its in mediation or to the courts when I request it. Im representing myself as much as possible to save on legal fees.

What I want to know is it it right she can claim now?

.
How much mortgage did you pay?
How much mortgage did he pay?
What was your deposit contribution, and what was his?

So he wasn't "your son" also?

Now figure what your payout should be.



J.C.

claireh11_2

OK the child is OUR son not just his. I didnt work I gave up my career so I could raise our son whilst my partner and then husband worked to support us. In the eyes of the law my contribution is just as great as my husbands as I was doing a very important job in running the family home and raising his child.

There was no deposit it was a 110% mortgage. I contributed to food etc but didnt pay utilities or the mortgage.

I dont qualify for LA as apparently I earn too much!?! I will be representing myself and have seen a solicitor on fixed fee basis on a couple of occasions.

We have to try mediation first and tbh it works better for as on my low income mine is paid for, he has to pay for his sessions at approx £140 a time, a hell of a lot less than a solicitor would be costing him.